DKIM Chair wrote:
To those who voted against draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata: given, now, that
we
will be using draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata to move forward, and the other
choices are off the table, can you accept draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as
written? If not, will you post specific changes, in OLD/NEW format, that
would
make it acceptable to you? Acceptable changes must keep the sense of the
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata document with regard to the new terminology.
I can do that, but it will probably take a few days. But for
clarification, is the new terminology cast in stone? I have a
particular problem with the term "User Agent Identifier (UAID)" because
it doesn't necessarily represent a user agent -- it could, for example,
represent a mailing list manager. I greatly prefer the term "signing
identifier" (which replaces signing identity) because it covers the
range of use cases more completely.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html